Five	  Agile	  Factors	  	  Helping	  Self-­‐Management	  to	  Self-­‐Reflect	  	  	  EuroSPI	  2011,	  Roskilde,	  Denmark...
Contents	  	  l     Introduc*on	  l     Objec*ves	  	  l     Related	  work	  l     Methodology	  l     Results	  l ...
IntroducKon	  Agile	  collaboraKve	  self-­‐managing	  teams	  	  l     High-­‐produc*vity	  (Guzzo	  and	  Dickson,	  19...
Related	  Work	  Five	  dimensions	  of	  agile	  teamwork	  (Moe	  et	  al.,2009)	  l  Shared	  Leadership	      Shared ...
ObjecKves	  To	  what	  extent	  can	  we	  use	  the	  findings	  of	  	  Moe	  et	  al.	  (2009)	  to	  measure	  self-­‐...
Methodology	  QuanKtaKve	  quesKonnaire:	  team	  data	  QualitaKve	  interviews:	  project	  environment	  Shared	  Leade...
Methodology:	  Data	  CollecKon	  ParKcipant	  and	  team	  idenKficaKon:	  l  SNS,	  Google	  Groups,	  SlideShare,	  Fli...
Data:	  79	  individuals,	  13	  countries,	  8	  teams	                                                                  ...
Results:	  Team	  Sample	  T1	  (UK)	  MMO	  Game	  back-­‐end	  T2	  (US)	  Collabora*ve	  SW	  for	  construc*on	  T3	  ...
Results:	  Team	  Sample	                           	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Leiden	  University.	  The	  un...
Results:	  Team	  Factors	         Learning: High                      Autonomy: Low                          	  	  	  	  ...
Results:	  Team	  Agreement	  T1 (UK) & T7 (IN): Both collocated teams→ Max agreement   T4 (NO) & T8 (NZ): Diversified tea...
Results:	  Team	  Sample	  Agile	  Values	  l  Low:	  Autonomy	  →	  consistent	  with	  Moe	  et	  al.	  l  High:	  Lea...
Results:	  Global	  Sample	  All	  79	  par*cipants	  	  	  	  	  	  Agile	  Factors	  l  Low	  Autonomy	  l  No	  signi...
Discussion	  Results	  l  Low	  Autonomy	  →	  consistent	  with	  Moe	  et	  al.	  l  Individual,	  Team	  and	  Organi...
RecommendaKons	  Shared	  Leadership	  l  Share	  decision	  authority	  Team	  OrientaKon	  l  Culture	  of	  trust	  R...
Validity	  &	  Future	  Work	  Validity	  ConsideraKons	  	  l     Consistency	  of	  data	  →	  Likert	  scales	  l    ...
Conclusions	  To	  what	  extent	  can	  we	  use	  the	  findings	  of	  	  Moe	  et	  al.	  (2009)	  to	  measure	  self-...
QuesKons?	  	  Thank	  you	  for	  your	  agen*on!	  	  steina@liacs.nl	                                    	  	  	  	  	 ...
References	  Fægri,	  T.E.,	  Dyb˚a,	  T.,	  Dingsøyr,	  T.:	  Introducing	  knowledge	  redundancy	  prac*ce	  in	  sokwa...
Results:	  Global	  Sample	                           	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Leiden	  University.	  The	  ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect

858 views
797 views

Published on

Slides for the "Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect" paper presented at EuroSPI'11 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/v05305v384k388v4/)

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
858
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
176
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect

  1. 1. Five  Agile  Factors    Helping  Self-­‐Management  to  Self-­‐Reflect      EuroSPI  2011,  Roskilde,  Denmark   Christoph J. Stettina (stettina@liacs.nl) Werner Heijstek (heijstek@liacs.nl) This research has been kindly supported by the EDAFMIS project                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  2. 2. Contents    l  Introduc*on  l  Objec*ves    l  Related  work  l  Methodology  l  Results  l  Discussion                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  3. 3. IntroducKon  Agile  collaboraKve  self-­‐managing  teams    l  High-­‐produc*vity  (Guzzo  and  Dickson,  1996)    l  Increased  problem  solving  (Tata and Prasad,1996)  l  Redundancy  and  backup  behavior  (Salas et al. 2005)    But,  self-­‐management  is  difficult  to  implement    l  Human  and  social  factors  (Moe et al. 2009, 2010)  l  Company  cultures,  context  dependency  l  Greater  exposure,  impression  management  →  Awareness  necessary                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  4. 4. Related  Work  Five  dimensions  of  agile  teamwork  (Moe  et  al.,2009)  l  Shared  Leadership   Shared mental model and decision authority, transfer of leadership  l  Team  Orienta*on   Team cohesion, team goals over individual goals  l  Redundancy   Avoids bottlenecks, shift workloads, mutual assistance  l  Learning   Interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition, self-optimization in environment  l  Autonomy   External influences, low: encourage group think    Qualita*ve  framework  build  on  theore*cal  and  empirical  ground   of  ac*on  research  studies                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  5. 5. ObjecKves  To  what  extent  can  we  use  the  findings  of    Moe  et  al.  (2009)  to  measure  self-­‐management   in  order  to  support  reflec@on  in  agile  teams?    l  Quan*ta*ve:  anonymous  and  easy  to  deploy    l  Test  alignment  to  original  research  l  Provide  feedback  for  the  team  l  Create  awareness    →  Strengthen  agile  teams                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  6. 6. Methodology  QuanKtaKve  quesKonnaire:  team  data  QualitaKve  interviews:  project  environment  Shared  Leadership  –  Team  OrientaKon  –  Redundancy  –  Learning  -­‐  Autonomy  l   I  feel  everyone  is  involved  in  the  decision-­‐making  process  l   I  feel  team  members  make  important  decisions  without  consul:ng  other  team   members  l   I  feel  the  team  vision  is  well  defined  and  presented  l   I  feel  the  team  is  designed  (and  redesigned)  according  to  its  purpose      Team  Orienta@on  l  I  feel  the  team  takes  into  account  alterna:ve  sugges:ons  in  team  discussions  l  I  feel  the  team  values  alterna:ve  sugges:ons  l  I  feel  team  members  relate  to  the  tasks  of  individuals  l  I  regularly  comment  on  a  co-­‐workers  work    Redundancy  l  I  feel  it  is  easy  to  complete  someone  elses  task  l  I  feel  I  get  help  if  I  get  stuck  l  I  help  others  when  they  have  problems  l  I  feel  it  is  easy  to  subs:tute  a  person  if  someone  leaves  the  team#    Learning  I  feel  the  team  keeps  what  works  well  in  the  development  process                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  7. 7. Methodology:  Data  CollecKon  ParKcipant  and  team  idenKficaKon:  l  SNS,  Google  Groups,  SlideShare,  Flickr,  etc.  l  Ac:vely  involved  in  Scrum  at  collec:on  :me    l  Unique  IDs  to  iden:fy  team  results                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  8. 8. Data:  79  individuals,  13  countries,  8  teams   Experience Country (in years) Roles                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  9. 9. Results:  Team  Sample  T1  (UK)  MMO  Game  back-­‐end  T2  (US)  Collabora*ve  SW  for  construc*on  T3  (UK)  Digital  media  agency  T4  (NO)  Smart  Card  key  solu*ons  T5  (NL)  Corporate  sites  and  web  shops  T6  (SE)  News  guide,  community  website  T7  (IN)  E-­‐commerce  T8  (NZ)  State  insurance  company    →  Representa*ve  mul*na*onal  sample                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  10. 10. Results:  Team  Sample                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  11. 11. Results:  Team  Factors   Learning: High Autonomy: Low                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  12. 12. Results:  Team  Agreement  T1 (UK) & T7 (IN): Both collocated teams→ Max agreement T4 (NO) & T8 (NZ): Diversified teams with different roles → Max disagreement                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  13. 13. Results:  Team  Sample  Agile  Values  l  Low:  Autonomy  →  consistent  with  Moe  et  al.  l  High:  Learning  →  not  consistent    Team  Agreement  l  Most:  Autonomy,  Team  Orienta*on  l  Least:  Redundancy,  Shared  Leadership    →  Does  not  reflect  on  agile  values            BUT:  Correlates  to  team  consistency                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  14. 14. Results:  Global  Sample  All  79  par*cipants            Agile  Factors  l  Low  Autonomy  l  No  significant  difference  among  other  factors     on  a  global  level                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  15. 15. Discussion  Results  l  Low  Autonomy  →  consistent  with  Moe  et  al.  l  Individual,  Team  and  Organiza*onal  level  l  Context  dependency  of  agile   implementa*ons      Tool  l  Ques*onnaire  met  with  interest  (79/150)  l  Should  be  executed  on  team  ini*a*ve,  not  to   be  used  by  organiza*onal  control                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  16. 16. RecommendaKons  Shared  Leadership  l  Share  decision  authority  Team  OrientaKon  l  Culture  of  trust  Redundancy  l  Job  rota*on,  team  colloca*on  Learning  l  Apprecia*on  of  generalists  (Fægri  et  al.  2010)  Autonomy  l  “One  project  at  a  *me”  (Moe  et  al.  2009)                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  17. 17. Validity  &  Future  Work  Validity  ConsideraKons    l  Consistency  of  data  →  Likert  scales  l  Low  amount  of  data  →  Team  agreement  l  Socially  Desirable  Responding  →  Anonymity    Future  Work    l  Dedicated  tool  l  7  point  Likert  scales  for  more  details  l  Improved  ques*ons  for  Learning  l  Further  tes*ng  with  a  small  student  team                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  18. 18. Conclusions  To  what  extent  can  we  use  the  findings  of    Moe  et  al.  (2009)  to  measure  self-­‐management   in  order  to  support  reflec@on  in  agile  teams?    l  Qualita*ve  Framework  →  Quan*ta*ve  Tool  l  Par*al  consistency  with  original  findings  l  Introduced  a  measure  for  team  agreement  l  Found  as  a  useful  tool  to  improve  discussion  l  Recommenda*ons  to  prac*ce                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  19. 19. QuesKons?    Thank  you  for  your  agen*on!    steina@liacs.nl                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  20. 20. References  Fægri,  T.E.,  Dyb˚a,  T.,  Dingsøyr,  T.:  Introducing  knowledge  redundancy  prac*ce  in  sokware  development:  Experiences  with  job  rota*on  in  support  work.  Inf.  Sokw.  Technol.  52,  1118–1132  (2010)    Guzzo,  R.A.,  Dickson,  M.W.:  Teams  in  organiza*ons:  Recent  research  on  performance  and  effec*veness.  Annual  Review  of  Psychology  47(1),  307–338  (1996)    Moe,  N.,  Dingsøyr,  T.,  Røyrvik,  E.:  Pupng  agile  teamwork  to  the  test  –  an  preliminary  instrument  for  empirically  assessing  and  improving  agile  sokware  development.  In:  Abrahamsson,  P.,  Marchesi,  M.,  Maurer,  F.  (eds.)  Agile  Processes  in  Sokware  Engineering  and  Extreme  Programming.  LNBIP,  vol.  31,  pp.  114–123.  Springer,  Heidelberg  (2009)      Moe,  N.,  Dingsøyr,  T.,  Dyba,  T.:  Overcoming  barriers  to  self-­‐management  in  sokware  teams.  IEEE  Sokware  26,  20–26  (2009)    Moe,  N.B.,  Dingsøyr,  T.,  Dyba,  T.:  A  teamwork  model  for  understanding  an  agile  team:  A  case  study  of  a  scrum  project.  Inf.  Sokw.  Technol.  52,  480–491  (2010)    Salas,  E.,  Sims,  D.,  Burke,  C.:  Is  there  a  big  five  in  teamwork?  Small  Group  Research  36(5),  555–599  (2005)    Tata,  J.,  Prasad,  S.:  Team  Self-­‐Management,  Organiza*onal  Structure  and  Judgments  of  Team  Effec*veness.  Journal  of  Managerial  Issues  16(2),  248+  (2004)                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  21. 21. Results:  Global  Sample                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  

×